Daniel Dennett Reveals His Favorite Philosopher | Big Think

Подписаться 7 млн

Просмотров 35 тыс.

50% 1

Daniel Dennett Reveals His Favorite Philosopher
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dennett Reveals His Favorite Philosopher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel C. Dennett:
Daniel C. Dennett is the author of Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, Breaking the Spell, Freedom Evolves, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea and is University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He lives with his wife in North Andover, Massachusetts, and has a daughter, a son, and a grandson. He was born in Boston in 1942, the son of a historian by the same name, and received his B.A. in philosophy from Harvard in 1963. He then went to Oxford to work with Gilbert Ryle, under whose supervision he completed the D.Phil. in philosophy in 1965. He taught at U.C. Irvine from 1965 to 1971, when he moved to Tufts, where he has taught ever since, aside from periods visiting at Harvard, Pittsburgh, Oxford, and the École Normale Supérieure in Paris.
His first book, Content and Consciousness, appeared in 1969, followed by Brainstorms (1978), Elbow Room (1984), The Intentional Stance (1987), Consciousness Explained (1991), Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), Kinds of Minds (1996), and Brainchildren: A Collection of Essays 1984-1996. Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness, was published in 2005. He co-edited The Mind's I with Douglas Hofstadter in 1981 and he is the author of over three hundred scholarly articles on various aspects on the mind, published in journals ranging from Artificial Intelligence and Behavioral and Brain Sciences to Poetics Today and the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
Dennett gave the John Locke Lectures at Oxford in 1983, the Gavin David Young Lectures at Adelaide, Australia, in 1985, and the Tanner Lecture at Michigan in 1986, among many others. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987.
He was the Co-founder (in 1985) and Co-director of the Curricular Software Studio at Tufts, and has helped to design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: Why Daniel Dennett Reveres David Hume
Dennett: First of all I think he was very good company and I think and I love his attitude and his style but I think he had a reasonable skepticism that peeled off layers of ideology and precept position in a very useful way and I think human causation is brilliant. I think human’s dialogue is concerning natural religion are just wonderfully brilliant. I think, I think that he saw dimly the scientific world that was beginning to emerge from Newton and he was in a way following luck trying to open up the exploration for the mind and he had lots of great insights that he developed with very acutely.

Опубликовано:

15 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 35

@josiahfreedman5516 Год назад

David Hume seems to be EVERY contemporary analytic philosopher’s favorite philosopher

@hss12661 Год назад

Absolutely not. Hume was popular among Vienna Circle and Moore and Russell. Then it was Kant and now - it's starting to be Hegel.

@gonzalodossantos3176 11 месяцев назад

He said "analytic" philosopher, what analytic philosophers have Hegel as their favorite philosopher??

@hss12661 11 месяцев назад

@@gonzalodossantos3176 Left-wing Sellarsians (Brandom etc.) Dennett is basically a right-wing Sellarsian so he's not that far although, if I recall correctly, his teacher was Quine.

@bourbon2242 4 месяца назад

@@hss12661 What are these left-wing and right-wing Sellarsian factions? And which camp would Rorty be in?

@hss12661 4 месяца назад

@@bourbon2242 left

@Pedro-te7xr 3 года назад

I don´t share many "materialistic" or "physicalist" views of reality of philosopher Daniel Dennett, but I also have with him Hume among my top 5 favourite philosophers. Hume was incredibly deep

@alexgomez2731 2 года назад

I agree, I also like David Hume, even though I am certainly not an empiricist. I mainly like him because of his writing style, ingenuity and insight, and, of course, paving the way for Kant and therefore German Idealism.

@jonahansen 11 месяцев назад

@@alexgomez2731 You guys both sound like a couple of philosophy majors.

@ricardoveiga007 5 лет назад

Indeed. Hume is a truly genius, and he sounds so contemporary!...

@salasvalor01 10 лет назад

The ending music was like "Alright, that's enough, we're trying to keep this under a minute and a half." And the result? 1:31

@CursusMoribus 11 лет назад

Dennett is one of the most underappreciated intellectuals of our era. This was a trivial topic, but it's nice to see who he holds in high regard.

@Rico-Suave_ 4 месяца назад

I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory

@robertmarques809 6 лет назад

This dude looks like SANTA CLAUS!!!

@PaulJones-oj4kr 7 лет назад

Hume argued that there was no consciousness, no self. But what Dennett studiously ignores is that Hume himself concluded that his argument was wrong. That there exists an inner wakefulness in mind Hume saw but could not explain. Either could Kant. Kant, too, confessed his inability, as did Hume, to explain 'the obvious.' Dennett explains wakefulness, consciousness away. Might as well 'explain' that complex molecules are nothing but atoms or plants are nothing but dirt. The idea of creative emergence, wholes being more than the sum of their parts, obvious to most of the scientific community, Dennett finds vacuous.

@Gunnergamerbro 3 года назад

I’m surprised that Dennett lauds Hume as much as he does (aside from Hume’s immense influence), given that Hume would probably not agree with almost any of Dennett’s core tenets, from his hardline materialism and stringent, no, stubborn belief in a closed series of causal events. Hume didn’t just have a healthy amount of skepticism, I think he would, in fact, be moderately skeptical of the deterministic leanings of general relativity. I don’t really think that the theory of general relativity can really be “doubted” per se, as far as science stands, but we know there’s all kinds of quantum weirdness that modern science just absolutely cannot account for. I’m on the fence about mysterianism in regards to physical matter but I think that causal indeterminacy is still a valid problem that is largely written off in the philosophical and scientific community

@alexgomez2731 2 года назад

Fair point. Hume is something of a double-edged sword for materialists and atheists like Dennett. On the one hand, Hume convincingly argues against traditional arguments for God and for (at least methodological) naturalism. On the other hand, Hume clearly thought that religion was not something that would ever go away, and he did consider knowledge of causation and the existence of the external world to be based on habit as opposed to reason

@dmbean85 11 лет назад

Caught a mistake in your transcript: "precept position" should read "presupposition" ; it makes a little more sense that way :)

@stephenlawrence4821 2 года назад

My understanding is Hume got causation wrong. I also don't think his problem of induction is such a problem. So I'm not impressed by him. But then, of course I might be wrong.

@XxBebbySimmerxX 11 лет назад

Why does he always have that fish brooch on his blazers??

@gojuryu83 4 года назад

It's a Darwin fish. Look it up, if you're still alive.

@danielwoodwardcomposer2040 8 лет назад

What!

@edmundburke8490 3 года назад

The fact that he choose Hume, doesnt suprise me. From a man who claims, that individuals who experience God in their lives are dim and silly. So no surprises there.

@Iceni007 10 лет назад

Hume is the guy who said when object X strikes object Y and object Y moves you cannot see the causation of that movement. Only a philosopher could say that with a straight face and without laughing. But the really funny thing is that people took him seriously, and even funnier still is that hundreds of years later "philosophers" like this chap still take such nincompoop balderdash seriously.

@dmoneydmaster8979 9 лет назад

The point Hume was making was not that object x didn't actually influence object y, but that you can't know that's what happened, bc we can't know anything and can only know of things, which explains why there is exceptions to things.

@qorilla 9 лет назад

Only a physicist could say such craziness that time can slow down for moving objects. Funny that people take it seriously.

@Iceni007 9 лет назад

qorilla agreed- most modern physicists (e.g. that michio guy) are utter idiots as well, whose hypotheses are totally untestable and are therefore unscientific, or worse - pseudo-scientific. the only two "philosophers" worth reading are Wittgenstein - as he showed how philosophical problems are illusions that arise from misuse of ordinary language. the other is Nietzsche - the original Steppenwolf and Shiva. there are no modern scientists worth reading.

@christopherceasar5353 8 лет назад

youre completely missing the point i just dont think you are capable of understanding. hume is saying yes WE can identify cause and effect but there is no way to prove it without a doubt that x moves y. we only perceive it that way because thats all we can do. perception is all we have like kant said we can only know the phenomena but we can never know the thing in itself.

@stevematson4808 6 лет назад

The socalled great philosopher imanual kant was supported by the absolute monarchs Catherine the great and Fredrik the great. Kant wasnt german. He was prussian.

@lordofliberals2261 7 лет назад

The least of the horsemen, I think. Everything he says sounds pretty vague and aimless, like he makes it up on the spot. He needs to go more into the gritty deep of philosophical analysis, like Sam Harris.

@willmpet 7 лет назад

Lord of Liberals - and David Hume was trying to reason that out. Considering the negative points of view at the time, he did.OUTSTANDING WORK. Unless you are willing to understand you will gravitate toward less capable people, as you have.

@MrSidney9 4 года назад

Dan is a much more sophisticated philosopher than Sam. The man studied at Harvard and oxford and is regularly cited. Dan is not a good public speaker though. Youd enjoy him more if you read him instead. Sam is easier to understand by lay people precisely because he's more shallow as a philosopher.